Naresh Kumar Sharma, Panipat V. ITO, Ward-3, Panipat

ITA 92/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5273 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 06-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.92/Del/2019 [Assessment Year : 2012-13] Naresh Kumar Sharma, House No.510, Panipat, Haryana-132103. PAN-BJOPK9122K vs ITO, Ward-3, Panipat. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by None Respondent by Shri Jeetendra Chand, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 05.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 20.09.2022 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : This appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), Karnal dated 13.11.2018. 2. The assessee has raised following ground of appeal:- 1. “That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has errored in confirming the addition of Rs.6,02,47,500/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer completely ignore the written submissions filed by the Appellant by email sent on 6 th Sept.2018. The same may kindly be deleted. 2. That the impugned order is factually wrong and legally bad, the same may be deleted. 3. That the Appellant craves the permission to add/modify/amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is hear & disposed off.” 2 | Page 3. At the time of hearing, no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. It is seen from the records that there has been no representation on behalf of the assessee since 04.01.2022. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee and being disposed off on the basis of material available on record. FACTS OF THE CASE 4. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessment of the assessee was re-opened u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] vide order dated 08.11.2017. Thereby, the Assessing Officer [“AO”] made addition of Rs.6,02,47,500/-. 5. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non-appearance of the assessee, without considering the submissions of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. Ld. Sr. DR opposed the grounds of appeal and supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee has been throughout negligent and did not attend the proceedings, despite having been given sufficient opportunity of hearing. 8. We have heard Ld. Sr. DR and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by observing as under:- 3 | Page 3. Findings:- The assessee has made no appearance in this case although various opportunities were given. The first hearing notice sent to the appellant on 06.08.2018 fixing the date of hearing on 20.08.2018 evoked no response. The second notice on 24.08.2018 fixing the date of hearing on 06.09.2018 invoked no response. The third notice on 12.09.2018 fixing the date of hearing on 26.09.2018 also evoked no response. The fourth notice on 27.09.2018 fixing the date of hearing on 17.10.2018 as being last opportunity to the appellant also evoked no response. But there has been no compliance. In spite of various opportunities being provided to the appellant, no documents or explanation have been provided by him. It strengthens my belief that the appellant has nothing to add or submit in respect of the additions made by the AO. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Pr.CIT-3, vs Ashok Ji Chanduji Thakur in order dated 27.06.2018 in R/Tax Appeal Nos.710 to 714 of 2018 and 717 of 2018 have held that in the case of non- cooperative attitude of the assessee despite various opportunities being granted at the AO as well as the level of CIT(A), the additions made by the AO was justified and the CIT(A) was also right in confirming the same. Accordingly, I confirm the additions made by the AO.” 9. However, the grievance of the assessee in the present appeal is that the assessee had made written submissions by email dated 06.09.2018 which has not been considered by the Ld.CIT(A). Looking to the facts of the case, we are of the considered view that Ld.CIT(A) ought to have considered the submissions, if any was sent by the assessee which is mandated by law and then disposed off the appeal by way of speaking order. Therefore, we hereby, set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for decision afresh on merit after considering the submissions of the assessee. 4 | Page Needless to say that the Ld.CIT(A) would afford sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20 th September, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (N.K.BILLAIYA) (KUL BHARAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER * Amit Kumar * Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI